Within days of the first shots of the Russia-Ukraine war, dozens of Western companies announced the halt of their Russia-based commercial activities, foregoing assets and potential profits to uphold values and retain the confidence of employees, investors, and consumers. Amidst this first major war of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) era, during which stakeholder capitalism has taken hold, corporate leaders have been expected to champion norms, mitigate negative externalities of commercial activities, and contribute to the solution of societal problems unrelated to bottom lines.

The war has also demonstrated a more primitive force in international life: classic realpolitik. Russia’s actions in Ukraine – and the response to its invasion – highlight that the global arena remains fractious and violent. In this sense, we also find ourselves at a turning point, characterized as the “post, post-Cold War era,” as states intensify efforts to outflank rivals in a quest for resources or greater relative power.

This collision of new and old forces underscores the profound challenge facing international companies, especially those operating in emerging markets. The war in Ukraine has revealed a dramatically changed strategic and risk landscape, with a range of novel opportunities to capture and downsides to mitigate.

Nowhere is this more acute than in Africa, where extractive companies are locked in a 21st century “Great Game,” seeking to secure commodities assessed to confer long-term strategic dominance. At the same time, companies must simultaneously contend with unprecedented scrutiny from journalists, NGOs, and local citizens analyzing the ESG-related impact of their activities. Businesses are caught, in essence, between the grim realities of zero-sum competition with other companies, frequently backed by national power, and the need to consistently say and do the right thing in relation to stakeholders.

For Western companies, the challenges are stark. With sanctions hitting Russian exports of oil, gas, metals, and minerals, the need for alternative supplies has intensified. Many potential assets are located in Africa, where China has long sought to control critical extractive resources through long-term concessions. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, Chinese companies operate 15 of the country’s 17 cobalt mines, representing access to the vast majority of the global supply of a mineral that is central to emerging battery technologies. The story is fundamentally the same across the copper belts of Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Russia has joined China in its bid for resources in Africa, seeking to elbow out other external powers, notably France. Countries like Mali and the Central African Republic, where Moscow has established itself as a security partner, have welcomed Kremlin-aligned mercenaries, threatening international peacekeeping and anti-terrorist operations in the Sahel, while also enabling Russia access to resources and infrastructure.

Up against the entrenched positions of Chinese and Russian companies and their respective governments, Western companies could have trouble gaining comparable backing in Africa from the US administration, preoccupied as it is with Ukraine, global energy supplies, Asia-Pacific security, COVID, inflation, and other challenges. Western interests may also receive tepid support from certain African leaders, as enunciated by the March 2 vote at an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly, when nearly half of Africa’s representatives declined to “deplore” Russia’s invasion.

In this context, business leaders from the United States, Canada, Europe, and elsewhere should play to their advantages, turning sensitivity to stakeholder engagement into a competitive differentiator. This will by no means be easy, as exemplified by international oil companies’ decades of frustration over maintaining social licenses to operate. But good intentions, reinforced by disciplining measures of the ESG age – such as heightened board attention and public transparency – position Western multinationals to strongly outperform Russia and China on this score. While those countries have proven willing and able to win over ruling elites, often through direct financial incentives, they have failed miserably when it comes to cultivating broader social support or demonstrating environmental sensitivity. Chinese investment, in particular, has become inextricably associated with poor construction quality, abusive labor practices, environmental degradation, corruption, and broken promises.

Critics of ESG often fault the term for its ambiguity, noting that anything and everything can be considered ESG in the right light. The critique is not without merit, but the solution may have less to do with discarding ESG than with following its internal logic through determined consultation with stakeholders, particularly local citizens, to agree on what companies can help resolve or avoid exacerbating. Western companies, steeped in the experience of their domestic democratic systems, may be particularly well suited in this respect, especially in Africa where ESG considerations have been absent under China and Russia’s watch. The war in Ukraine, in more ways than one, has generated an opening for proponents of Right to overcome those that would singularly emphasize Might.

Steven Fox and Jay Truesdale are Executive Chairman and CEO, respectively, of Veracity Worldwide, where David Stevens is Managing Director and Mitch Hayes is Director. The authors wish to thank David Alm and Benjamin Weiss for their contributions.